Why Anti-Cop Protests “Serve And Protect” No One

For months now, the protests and the anti-cop rhetoric in NYC, Ferguson, Missouri and other cities across the nation have grown to a dangerous level. With two executed policemen and many more cops’ lives being threatened, the peaceful voices of those pleading for justice are being overshadowed by the vengeful ones calling for blood.

It’s sickening, irresponsible and totally out of control.

Is this what we have become as a society? Has the cry for justice become an excuse for incivility and chaos? Has the right to protest goaded us into some form of contorted, reasoning?

Those who are promoting violence against law enforcement, making excuses for it, or turning a blind-eye from it are all equally guilty and fail to recognize the injustice and danger it poses to America as a nation.

Once we start calling for the killing of cops who are entrusted to protect and serve us we become nothing more than the purveyors of anarchy.

Of course, there are those professional, social commentators like on CNN who will try to make excuses for these actions by saying it’s just a “few knuckleheads” acting out of “raw emotion.”

It’s sad, however, that they fail to recognize that it was the culmination of all the protesting (peaceful and violent) that brought about the deaths of two policemen. It was also the result of the news media gone wild reporting on all the anti-cop, rhetoric.

It only takes one nut to set off a chain reaction. How many cops are the protesters willing to see die before they say it is time for the protesting to end peacefully?

When some politicians like NYC, Mayor Bill De Blasio let protesters vent to an unacceptable level – death and destruction follows. When you let protesters take over bridges, gridlock city streets, spit and throw bottles at cops and punch them in the face you send a very clear message, which is – “It’s okay, we won’t stop you. Carry on.”

Is that serving a purpose, other than for the total acceptance of lawlessness?

Also, when De Blasio sits down and asks for advice from race-baiting, activists who are inciting much of the violence, it becomes nothing more than a comedic, sideshow and one with serious repercussions.

People who call for the killing of cops and those who condone it are more of a serious threat to the public than the abusive cops themselves whose actions have come into question. They should be treated harshly, instead of given carte blanche in the name of free speech and civil rights on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter.

Tweeting about killing a cop or sending a thumbs up when one is killed should be treated as a terroristic threat or acting as an accessory. Posting a cop’s address on Twitter should be an immediate reason to have the legal system’s crosshairs aimed upon your door.

We need cops. Even the people who hate cops need them although they are too dumb and filled with rage to understand that reality. The reasons why we need cops are clear to the rest of us. Of course, there will be bad cops, much in the same way, there will always be bad doctors and bad lawyers.

It’s not about black and white; it’s about life, and there are bad apples in every profession.

Cops who protect and serve us the right way though should be given the respect they deserve and the gratitude they earn every day when they put their lives on the line for us. They shouldn’t have a race card thrown at them as a whole because a few among them have chosen to act badly.

A cop who gets spit on today by a protester may very well be the same cop who will save someone’s life tomorrow.

None of us should ever forget that.

Joseph E. Rathjen is a freelance writer and an Opinion Writer at 1World Online – America’s Fastest Growing Social Research Engine.

6 thoughts on “Why Anti-Cop Protests “Serve And Protect” No One”

It is sad. So sad that I cry when I see or her something good on the news. Our society is crumbling. Those who protect and serve should get respect, now days they don’t even get respect when they actually earn it. Poor parenting. No consequence. We need to bring back “an eye for an eye”. Oh, I could go on and on with this rant.

You are misstating the facts, the protests are not anti-cop but pro-justice! And as such they are a simple reflection of the rampant corruption through US society from Obama, Bush, Cheney and on down to the Daryl Wilsons of this world! If authorities can literally get away with crime without being tried then only anarchy can result. Your argument is silly and uninformed!

People who claim they are protesting for justice when they don’t like a Grand Jury decision have only their own, selfish brand of justice in mind. Lady Justice herself wears a blindfold to tell us that she sees no color, no bigotry or prejudice, although others seek it out. The law has to remain the same for everyone. If we demand double-standards we retard the definition of the word (justice) itself.

Although you are right that everyone is to blame for corruption, I don’t see any solutions or guidelines being offered by the protesters or race hucksters themselves. When you try to change the law by breaking the law you are no more informed or have anything productive to offer to society. You are simply, a silly fool who has no understanding of how to be a contributing member to the human race.

Some people think their idea of justice should revolve around those who scream the loudest and carry the biggest sign. These are usually the people who walk around with a chip on their shoulder for one reason or another.

They find injustice everywhere they go. They would do far better to be a part of the solution, not the problem.

You say it yourself. These cops are there to protect and serve. These protests are the results of people who did not feel protected by the police. You complain about the focus on who’s carry the biggest sign or screaming the loudest, but dismiss the peaceful protests that are taking place.

Every time a police officer kills a citizen, that officer needs to be put on trial. Maybe he was well within his rights to defend himself in the manner he did, but that needs to be examined in a trial. The grand jury had probable cause that a crime was committed and the trial jury probably should and would have acquitted him of all charges.